When I'm in the mood for a movie, I usually go to IMDB to check out it's rating. I try to avoid seing movies below a rating of 7. Who's got time to lose listening to a bad movie, right?
Then, as I surf IMDB, I sometimes wander around checking other user's impressions of movies I've seen, I'm curious that way. And as I do that, I can also get a feel of the credibility I can give the rating system.
Well, the rating I saw for "Other People's Money" blew my mind! I can't believe it has such a low rating. It's one of my favorite movies. I love the script, the clashing of ideas and values. I love the characters, the're very representative, opinionated, true and strong, and they're very well played. The movie's full of strong scenes: Garfield's first visit to the New England Wire's Co ("I like round numbers"), Garfield's chewing of his lawyer's ("You know what happens when the commies take over, the first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers!"), and of course the stockholder's meeting scene which alone is worth the whole movie. It is one of my most memorable movie scenes ever. I seriously have a hard time finding flaws in this movie.
I've read reviews about how it wasn't true to the play - I didn't even know it started out, or was based on a play. I guess a lot of IMDB voters were disappointed in the treatment this movie made of the play and accordingly gave a bad score. My point is: so what? A movie should be judged upon what it is, not what it could or should have been. It deserves to be evaluated fairly as a "whole", not in relation to doubtful and personal expectations. I hate biased ratings.
After seing the score this movie got on IMDB, I've lost a lot of faith in the value of using the rating system as a bearing for movies I'll want to see. My advice: don't be fooled. See this movie and judge for yourself.
Then, as I surf IMDB, I sometimes wander around checking other user's impressions of movies I've seen, I'm curious that way. And as I do that, I can also get a feel of the credibility I can give the rating system.
Well, the rating I saw for "Other People's Money" blew my mind! I can't believe it has such a low rating. It's one of my favorite movies. I love the script, the clashing of ideas and values. I love the characters, the're very representative, opinionated, true and strong, and they're very well played. The movie's full of strong scenes: Garfield's first visit to the New England Wire's Co ("I like round numbers"), Garfield's chewing of his lawyer's ("You know what happens when the commies take over, the first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers!"), and of course the stockholder's meeting scene which alone is worth the whole movie. It is one of my most memorable movie scenes ever. I seriously have a hard time finding flaws in this movie.
I've read reviews about how it wasn't true to the play - I didn't even know it started out, or was based on a play. I guess a lot of IMDB voters were disappointed in the treatment this movie made of the play and accordingly gave a bad score. My point is: so what? A movie should be judged upon what it is, not what it could or should have been. It deserves to be evaluated fairly as a "whole", not in relation to doubtful and personal expectations. I hate biased ratings.
After seing the score this movie got on IMDB, I've lost a lot of faith in the value of using the rating system as a bearing for movies I'll want to see. My advice: don't be fooled. See this movie and judge for yourself.